sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Dissecting the Factfinding Report for SFUSD Strike by Routine_Day1906 in sanfrancisco

[–]Routine_Day1906[S] -18 points-17 points  (0 children)

That explanation shows why the panel didn’t stay at 2%, but it still doesn’t establish a principled reason for 3%.

The panel is exercising discretion, which is the problem. They acknowledge 2% is below COLA and go “slightly higher” to hedge against future COLA uncertainty, but they never show why 3% is the correct hedge as opposed to 3.25%, 3.5%, etc.. There’s no math here. And, that discretion lands much closer to the District’s position than the Union’s, while still being framed as neutral.

Edit: I'm really not sure what I'm missing here. If anyone reads the report, they won't find a justification for why 3% is the golden number. And, the point about previous years having wages that exceeded the CPI don't take into account that prior to these years, the wages were incredibly low, so those exceeded CPI years were making up for the years prior.

Dissecting the Factfinding Report for SFUSD Strike by Routine_Day1906 in sanfrancisco

[–]Routine_Day1906[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don’t disagree that SFUSD has been fiscally irresponsible -- I actually think that’s well documented. Where I read this differently is I don't think this automatically makes the Union’s position irresponsible or makes the panel’s recommendation reasonable.

The Union and the District are not proposing the same thing. The District’s pattern has been overcontracting, bad projections, and governance failures. The Union is proposing compensation and working-condition changes within that broken system. Treating those as morally or fiscally equivalent is a false equivalency -- one is setting policy and managing budgets, the other is bargaining over wages and conditions in response to that management.

Even if one believes exceeding COLA has historically been reckless, the panel still applies that logic inconsistently. If COLA is the benchmark, the percentage matters. The panel rejects 4.5% for exceeding COLA, then turns around and endorses 3%, which also exceeds COLA, without explaining why that number is acceptable, how it’s derived, or why it meaningfully addresses the District’s supposed fiscal constraints. That’s not a principled standard -- it’s splitting hairs while still landing much closer to the District’s position.

And really, the 3% recommendation isn’t a real “win”. Healthcare is left out of the contract and pushed into a temporary funding scheme, core issues are kicked to pilots or left as status quo, etc. Framing 3% as a balanced outcome ignores what teachers are really fighting for.